Re: [Roll] RPL-Unaware-Leaf or RPL-Unaware Leaf ?

"Timothy J. Salo" <salo@saloits.com> Tue, 15 December 2020 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <salo@saloits.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389A13A0544 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:47:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBlmlRSkKEpT for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saloits.com (saloits.com [63.228.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3B333A0489 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.255.218] (t460-1.saloits.com [192.168.255.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by saloits.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0404BE0055; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:47:32 -0600 (CST)
To: roll@ietf.org
References: <CO1PR11MB48818A537C3EA3FC85E73C0BD8C70@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <161a2e64-0325-5a22-ce1d-28a58888aaed@saloits.com> <0CF0DCA8-FCAE-435B-9C23-CC00DE80F42E@cisco.com> <29100.1607994514@localhost>
From: "Timothy J. Salo" <salo@saloits.com>
Message-ID: <d5ce6223-b208-b92b-b877-13cc49623f32@saloits.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:47:32 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <29100.1607994514@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/KfD1RWi9IR-R6WM3cpa4Ww80-zk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-Unaware-Leaf or RPL-Unaware Leaf ?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:47:36 -0000

On 12/14/2020 7:08 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>      > Ines, do we agree to change both drafts to say RPL-(un)aware Leaf|node
>      > ?
> 
>      >> Another of the hyphenation rules is:
>      >>
>      >> o Use a hyphen to avoid confusion.
> 
> I prefer this rule, and to leave it as "RPL-unware-leaf"

I assume an editor will catch this and change it to RPL-unaware leaf.

In my view, "RPL-unaware leaf" is grammatically correct and unambiguous.

-tjs